Eyeing the World With a Bright Light

Menu

Prop 8’s Pink Elephant in the Room

Let’s quit walking around the pink elephant in the room. If you don’t view homosexuality as sin (and doing so is not about hating homosexuals because we all sin), then more than likely, you are going to have the views of California’s “No on 8” supporters.

So, there you have it! The fundamental difference, one side believes homosexuality is acceptable for all of society, the other side – Yes on 8 – believes that homosexuality is a sin and should not be embraced by society.

Hate gays? No. Hate the sin. Now you can debate your view that homosexual behavior is not sin…and that is your choice, your understanding, and your belief. Hate those that believe that way? No.

Will the acceptance of gay marriage effect our society? Yes. Will all people understand that concept? No. It goes back to whether or not you believe homosexuality is a sin or not.

And even before that, whether you believe in the concept of sin or not. For if you don’t believe that sin exists, and you believe that truth is your own relevance, then this discussion is mute.

Do I fear gays, or gay marriage, or anyone siding with the normalization of homosexuality? No. In fact, your orientation has no basis on my desire to be friends with you or anyone.

I fear the Lord.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” – Proverbs 1:7
_______________

ADD: A quick sprint through CNN’s and the Los Angeles Times’ stories and blogs on Prop 8 Sunday morning showed that anyone wanting to leave a comment received this message or something similar: “Comments have been closed for this article.”

For so many people espousing tolerance, especially media types, where’s the dialogue about homosexuality? And for all you evolutionists out there…why haven’t we “evolved” beyond simply political campaign signs and streetside demonstrations?

Post navigation

7 thoughts on “Prop 8’s Pink Elephant in the Room”

What about the children in California?
Is Proposition 8 child abuse?
Do children’s mental and emotional well-being matter?

In California, imagine how SAFE the young children of gay or lesbian parents are feeling during this PROPOSITION 8 INSANITY.

Would children feel SAFE if they knew other families were voting, for God’s sake, VOTING on whether their parents deserved the right to be married and treated fairly in society?

How SAFE would a boy feel knowing some parents and teachers do not believe his own family is the same as their families?

How SAFE would a girl feel knowing some children do not believe her own family deserves “the same” as their families?

Now even young children ECHO this intolerance on the playground, thanks to their parents hateful words and ideas. How sick for the children of the YES ON PROP 8 crowd to feel more deserving than other children and their parents! Many children already know and love their gay uncles, lesbian grandmothers, and other FAMILY MEMBERS who are LGBTI, so we have created a hideous world with PROPOSITION 8 and other amendments like it in the U.S. Children are living in a world where they are witnessing adults spending MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars FOR or AGAINST their FAMILY.

Children deserve to grow up in a world where they BELONG.

Children deserve to grow up feeling SAFE.

How sick of a society that we ALLOW family rights to be VOTED ON?

Straight and gay children are being raised by straight and gay parents, but the government forgot that we are ALL interconnected in our families and in society. So now PROPOSITION 8 has brought children into this culture war, a war based on the assumption that some families deserve more legal rights and protections than other families in times of sickness, death, and divorce [for starters]. SICK.

“Same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron: “The same-sex union of a man and a woman.” I have no issue if the gov’t got out of marriage completely, or if they just granted “civil unions” to one male/one female couples.

But the question is why the gov’t gets involved at all. It has nothing to do with love. Plenty of marriages don’t have love in that sense, either because people have their ups and downs, or the marriages were arranged, or whatever.

The gov’t gets involved because by nature and design heterosexual couples produce the next generation of children, and ONLY heterosexual couples can provide a mother and a father to a child. Are there exceptions with single parents and infertile couples? Of course, but that doesn’t mean we have to nuke the definition of marriage. It is all about what gov’t has a reason to regulate.

Gay people can get married today at all sorts of apostate churches. They can have loving and committed relationships. It has nothing to do with religion.

And why do the pro-gay folks limit the defintion of civil unions to two people? What do you have against polygamists? Wouldn’t your love/commitment foundation apply to them? And what about incestuous couples? If you say that marriage is NOT just between one man and one woman, then you can make it whatever you want to be.

Thank God for The Mormons and others who came here to California, and the ones that are already here. The Marriage is a Man and a Woman, and The Gay Agenda is not going to work and again us in California will speak again for Marriage. I am so sick of the lies by Feinstein and Arnold 2 Political losers imop, who sell out American Families for a few Gay Agenda Groups and Money. I hope that the message is clear Marriage is best when its between a Man and a Woman.